Proposed SIG: Windows MinGW cross-compiler SIG

[Ralf Corsepius]

On Tue, 2008-07-08 at 08:55 +0100, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 08, 2008 at 08:07:52AM +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> > On Mon, 2008-07-07 at 23:43 +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jul 07, 2008 at 03:53:14PM -0600, Brendan Conoboy wrote:
> > > > Any particular reason to go with MinGW rather than Cygwin?  Is there  
> > > > room for both in the SIG?
> > > 
> > > Cygwin has a licensing issue -- namely that it is GPL and so prevents
> > > any proprietary development on top of our libraries.
> > How can a toolchain not supporting proprietary development be an issue
> > to Fedora? It may-be sufficient reason for some users not use Cygwin,
> > but this his hardly Fedora's problem.
> 
> You are in essense saying that only GPL software is allowed in Fedora
> which is utter nonsense. 
Absolute not - I am actually saying the opposite: 

* The fact Cygwin appears to be GPL'ed only, is an issue to Cygwin
users, because it may prevent them from using Cygwin for proprietary
packages/development (must not link against non-GPL'ed libs).

* The fact Cygwin appears to be GPL'ed only, is not an issue to Fedora.
There is no reason for not including Fedora->Cygwin cross-compilers into
Fedora.

> We want to use MinGW so that we can provide
> LGPL software, since Cygwin is GPL only, which is a perfectly legitimate
> choice to make. 
Of cause, ...

Ralf